It
started in 1866, that is, the beginning of gun control laws in Ottoman
Turkey. Article 166 was the first, then further laws were enacted in
1911 and 1915. First, permits were required, then came a government list
of all gun owners, and finally, a ban on possession. It was gradual. The
entire process took 49 years. Finally, however, the citizens were
disarmed. The government, of course, was not. The death toll? So many,
their number was never fully counted.

In the Soviet Union the process advanced much faster. Gun control laws
began under soviet resolutions in 1918. Then they enacted Articles 59
&182 of the penal code. First came licensing of owners, then a ban on
possession with severe penalties. By 1926 ownership of firearms by
citizens (not government) was a fact of life in Soviet Russia. The death
squads and violent persecution of Russian Christians and dissidents
began in 1929. It took only 3 years to go from full gun control to the
murder of Russian civilians. The death count? A minimum of 20 million
with some historian's estimates ranging up to 50 million. Only the Lord
knows the full number. 1 million to 1.5 million Armenians, mostly
Christian people, who had become helpless before their enemies.

More easily within our memories is Rwanda in 1994. That was the year
800,000 innocent civilians were murdered in just a few weeks. The
anti-gun laws were enacted in 1979 - Decree #12. Gun owners, guns, and
ammunition had to be registered. Owners had to justify need. Concealed
guns became illegal and the government gained the power to confiscate.
The end result? 800,000 Tutsi people killed, mostly by machete.

We could go on in similar fashion remembering Nazi Germany (ban on
possession 1938), Red China (1957), Uganda (Firearms Act 1970), and many
more with the count of unarmed, civilian dead, killed by their own
governments, ranging around 170,000,000 in the 20th century alone (see
the
Genocide Chart (PDF
Version) at JPFO.org
for a quick summary). All of this ought to be a sober reminder, pointing
us back to those old Bible stories and doctrines that served Christian
societies for so many centuries.

It was under King Saul we read (1 Samuel 13:17-22) how the nation of
Israel was oppressed by the Philistines. Raiders came from the camp of
the Philistines in three companies, each turning in different
directions. Times had become desperate and dangerous. Saul was camped in
Geba of Benjamin, but the nation's enemies were spreading out to wreak
havoc on the people. This is when the Scripture writer drops in this
little tidbit for our consideration. He writes, "Now no blacksmith could
be found in all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, 'lest the
Hebrews make swords or spears." So, here the nation was, under direct
attack by their long-time enemy. Israel had already been disarmed and
cowed into submission. The text lets us know that, "all Israel went down
to the Philistines, each to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his ax
and his hoe. " They supposed they would have a king who would lead them
out against their enemies (1 Samuel 8:20). What they actually got was a
sometimes heroic leader and an often waffling, indecisive, cowardly man
to rule them. Now as the enemy spread out over the land, the people
found themselves unarmed and undefended.

Did God give His people victory in the battles that followed? Yes He
did. However, the obvious message from the text is that it is ruinous
and morally wrong for God's people to be disarmed and defenseless before
their enemies. This was not His command nor law for them. It is a
description of slavery, not liberty, for they were (as are we) called to
liberty, under the Lord.

Some of our Christian brethren are shouting at us that in all
circumstances it is our duty to turn the other cheek. This philosophy
derives from the idea that only the New Testament may be used to inform
our doctrine. When I ask people online how they might defend this idea,
my questions are either ignored, or the discussion abandoned. They
cannot answer any close questions as to why the Old Testament has, by
them, been rendered of no account. Like the Pharisees, they have
strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel. The foolishness of modern
American evangelicalism is often bared to daylight when we start
discussing issues about how to actually live in this fallen world. They
have eliminated the Old Testament which makes up about 70% of the entire
Bible. Then, they stumble around the New Testament text snapping at
theological mismatches of verse and doctrine, attempting to make sense
of their, now, truncated Book. All of this derives to the detriment of
the kingdom and the church.

When the Jewish people returned from captivity in Babylon to re-build
the Temple and the holy city, they met tough resistance. As work on the
city walls advanced their enemies began to offer threats. There was no
army to protect this frightened band of inchoate settlers. Sensing the
doom of their righteous project, Nehemiah instructs them to arm
themselves. They are to carry a sword or spear in one hand and raise the
stone walls with the other. He tells them to fight (Nehemiah 4:14), "for
your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses."
That is what the chosen people (remember the New Testament calls us the
chosen people), were to fight for under Godly law. This is not
instruction for only Jewish settlers in Jerusalem. Rather, it
establishes a moral paradigm for righteous men. We are to be defenders
of our brothers, our sons, our daughters, wives, and houses. This is a
definition of righteousness for Godly people. Now, we are being told to
abandon that right principle and become slaves dependent upon the state.

We may ask if there is any New Testament principle that might inform our
doctrine concerning the carrying or use of weapons. If we remind
ourselves that we are to treat our neighbor as ourselves the answer
remains unchanged from our Old Testament lessons. Suppose I were to find
myself in a parking lot with a couple of guys kicking in my ribs. I
would be glowingly pleased to have any of my neighbors step in with a
hand gun, machine gun, or assault rifle to save my life. Most of us
would consider that to be right neighborly. In my view, it would not
matter a wit if the person saving me had a banana clip on his assault
rifle or if the flash suppressor were illegal. The Old Testament
principle of fighting for our brothers is a fundamentally righteous
principle that carries forward into the New Testament era. Basic
morality has not changed. The New Testament has not morphed right
principle into nothing but a bunch of love and hugging. We need love and
hugs, but we also need safety, liberty, and justice. All of these are
discovered in the sphere of Biblically-based action.

The current political situation seems to be pushing us toward new laws
for gun control. The sin nature of man always pushes fearful men to seek
safety in the state. It appears that most Americans would prefer to
unburden themselves from the duty to defend our neighbors and families
and have the state provide that service. Jeremiah informs us that the
human heart is desperately wicked and seeks to do evil continually. This
principle applies both to those who run the government and to the
governed. If the citizens are unarmed, and helpless before a
power-hungry civil government, the results are always the same. Over
time, that government will follow its sinful bent and murder its own
citizens. An armed citizenry is the right answer, and I mean the
doctrinally right answer, to limiting tyranny and defending what is
ours. The civil government may go so far, but no further. They do not
have a right to take everything. They cannot rightfully take our wives,
or daughters, our houses - or guns. The right to own weapons is implicit
in the command to defend.

This concept of citizens having a duty to defend their liberty used to
be well understood by our Christian ancestors. Even as late as World War
II the Japanese Imperial Naval Commander-in Chief, Isoroku Yamamoto is
said to have warned, "You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." That was a
compliment to the American men of that time. Those cheering for our
personal disarmament would have us wear chains rather than the
accoutrements of warfare. I will not volunteer for chains.